The subject of this debate is immortality being "good" or the opposite of the word which is "bad". Those are very vague terms when characterising something, because these words are multi-faceted but since you later used the word desirable so i'm led to believe that that's the word you actually meant to characterise immortality as.
Now, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word desirable as "having pleasing qualities or properties", and the word is synonym with the word "attractive". With science as it is, you can't read or look into other people's minds and thoughts so you can never really know if what you desire corresponds to what everyone else desires or is attracted by. That being said, there are 8 billion people in this world and i'm absolutely certain that someone out there desires to live forever no matter the implications or possibly someone out there likes being all alone. Something being desirable is completely subjective and you have taken the con position in this debate so you basically believe that immortality isn't desirable and i counter that it is extremely possible that it could be desired by someone.
It has both advantages and disadvantages so according to the word definition i provided, it "merits" attention and consideration, even if that is by few
In addition, you didn't specify if one person is supposed to be immortal or if we're talking about immortality in general and the second round of a debate is too late to do that.
If we were talking about the real world, the only way immortality would be achieved, would be through science. Immortality would ultimately be distributed among people and it wouldn't be kept to one person or two. That's simply not how the world works. Now back to my point, if we were talking about the real world, your argument would be false.
If we were talking about an imaginary world, we wouldn't know how the world worked since it doesn't exist and it would only exist and function as part of our imagination. In the same way, we could put our imagination to there being multiple immortals so well that is a big question mark
I will let you answer to the question i posed in the third paragraph even though it is quite too late to do so.
Source
Well, my view is that Pro is making the stronger argument. Con's position is supposed to be against the idea that immorality would be good. Yet, they talk good things about it, saying that it makes someone wise, gives them experience, and they are superhuman. The only pushback they give is over theoretical rhetoric that has nothing to do with morality.
Pro, on the other hand, keeps their argument completely within the context of the subject. And brings up excellent points, such as these terms are vague and can easily be seen as an argument for immortality, not immorality. They make a particularly good point about the subjective nature of desire, the inability to predict others, and the stark difference between the real world and the imagined and how it works. However, I disagree that immorality is only achievable in science.
I didn't see that you were con, i thought you were pro. Nevertheless, i will debate you